[satfrat]

You might want to stay with a CG4 center also AJ. Better to have all 5 matching monitors for a seamless HT wrap around sound stage.

Have we chased them crickets away yet? 

[ajzepp]

Do you think it would still be seamless if the center isn't at the same height and orientation as the mains? Ideally I would like to have identical speakers across the front, but given that I'll have the mains on stands and the center sitting on a wide, low audio/video table, the center's orientation will be completely different. I figured that would likely disrupt the soundstage anyway, so might as well go with the speaker that is a bit more "forward" but also shares the same drivers.

[srb]

All of the center channel setups I've had positioned the center speaker 12" to 18" below the L/R speakers.  As long as the center speaker is angled up toward the listening position I haven't heard any noticeable discontinuity.
 
Steve

[satfrat]

Do you think it would still be seamless if the center isn't at the same height and orientation as the mains? Ideally I would like to have identical speakers across the front, but given that I'll have the mains on stands and the center sitting on a wide, low audio/video table, the center's orientation will be completely different. I figured that would likely disrupt the soundstage anyway, so might as well go with the speaker that is a bit more "forward" but also shares the same drivers.

My system is setup exactly as SRB describes with my center angled. It's a compromise as are most HT setups, I was speaking from an ideal perspective which was why I recommended 5 CG24's in the 1st place or 4 CG4's instead. I'm sure you'll have no problem integrating a CG24 center with your SG4's, it's what I'd do in your situation but personally I would have gone with 5 CG24's regardless of room size. Heck my room is only 11' x 17' x 7' and I have 4 Odyssey Lorelei's, 2 Usher X-616 centers and an ACI Force XL subwoofer,,, wih lots of room treatment! It's so cozy here. 

But back to what you now have, awaiting listening impressions when they're available AJ. Pictures are always appreciated.

Cheers,
Robin

[ajzepp]

All of the center channel setups I've had positioned the center speaker 12" to 18" below the L/R speakers.  As long as the center speaker is angled up toward the listening position I haven't heard any noticeable discontinuity.
 
Steve

Thanks Steve...so given that restriction, do you think an identical speaker to the mains (see pics above) would offer a more cohesive front stage over going with the MTM model (shares same drivers) that is more of a traditional center speaker? Or would both be compromised to the same degree?

[ajzepp]

My system is setup exactly as SRB describes with my center angled. It's a compromise as are most HT setups, I was speaking from an ideal perspective which was why I recommended 5 CG24's in the 1st place or 4 CG4's instead. I'm sure you'll have no problem integrating a CG24 center with your SG4's, it's what I'd do in your situation but personally I would have gone with 5 CG24's regardless of room size. Heck my room is only 11' x 17' x 7' and I have 4 Odyssey Lorelei's, 2 Usher X-616 centers and an ACI Force XL subwoofer,,, wih lots of room treatment! It's so cozy here. 

But back to what you now have, awaiting listening impressions when they're available AJ. Pictures are always appreciated.

Cheers,
Robin

Well, if I'm being honest, I've never been a huge fan of an M-T-M design to begin with....not sure why, really. But I was thinking the CG24 would offer a tad bit wider dispersion if I used that as opposed to another CG4 in the middle. I could just try both, actually....Since I'm going to order surrounds anyway, I could just use one of the surrounds in that role before I installed them in back and then see how it sounds. I'm actually getting pretty good center fill with just the pair today. I'm typically really not a believer in break-in, but for whatever reason, these do seem to be improving. And most of the break-in has been when I haven't even been home, which I can only assume would mitigate the psychological factors in play, I dunno. Going to play with them some more today and tomorrow....will prob order more of them by Thurs or Fri if I keep them.

As for your system, you'd have to really find something amazing to better those Lors....I remember talkign with you about those LONG ago when I was looking at Klaus' gear.....If I hadn't gotten a killer deal on the DeVores back then, the Lors were my target. Those are some beautiful speakers you have there )

[satfrat]

Break-in??? It's all in your head AJ. Just kidding. 

[ajzepp]

Break-in??? It's all in your head AJ. Just kidding. 

I don't doubt that!  I'm extremely dubious of it, especially when it's been suggested to me by RSL so many times. They certainly do sound improved, though. lol

[ajzepp]

So, since this has been a lot of fun over the last few days, why not do as Emeril does and "kick it up a notch". I was speaking with Howard at RSL today, and we were talking about some of the differences between the CG4s that I currently have in-house for audition, and the CG24 monitors. One of the things that I love most about a good pair of speakers is their ability to establish a real "presence". My two favorite speaker companies - Magnepan (I know, you're all tired of hearing about Maggie love by now...sorry!) and DeVore Fidelity - put out speakers that excel in this area. The word that I will always use is "organic". I am drawn to speakers that can bring an organic quality to the music and/or movie.

Well, one of the differences between the CG4 and the CG24 is apparently the midrange presence. Per Howard, the 24s are a bit more forward in the mids, and so as I was talking to him about my CG4 thoughts to this point, he suggested that perhaps I should consider ALSO auditioning the 24s. So of course that got me thinking about Robin's comment above about why I didn't just go with the 24s to begin with. So all of a sudden this started making sense to me...and that's when Emeril appeared on my shoulder and chimed in with his $.02...soooo, the bottom line is that there will be a pair of 24s on the way to scenic Flowery Branch, Georgia soon and the fun of this evaluation process shall continue a bit longer!

I think this time, in honor of Emeril, I will bring along the big boys to join in the party. No more little Onkyo receiver. I'm going to get the Butler 5150 hybrid amp, the McCormack MAP-1, the Oppo universal player and some proper stands over here to really give them every opportunity to shine...by the time all is said and done, it may end up being two full notches...

So, I'll enjoy the smooth sounds of the CG4s this week as I await the arrival of their big brothers, and will certainly report back with impressions on the new guys AND some notes on how the two models compare and contrast to one another.

[ajzepp]

Had another small revelation tonight...

I wanted to finish up The Raven (John Cusack flick) tonight before my rental period expired, so I fired up Vudu about 7pm. I figured maybe I'd give the CG4s a little more juice since it wasn't late at night. What I found was very interesting. Keep in mind that not only am I used to an amplifier with some major juice behind it (Butler Audio), but I've been using some little Dayton Audio bookshelf speakers with the current Onkyo 50wpc receiver that are very sensitive and easy to drive. So when I was makign volume adjustments, I wasn't really being all that aggressive since I"m used to small adjustments having big results. Well, I cranked it up closer to about 12:00 on the dial, as opposed to about 10:00 where I have been to this point. The CG4s didn't really get much louder, but they got MUCH fuller and much more present. The movie was jumping out at me for the first time since I unpacked them on Friday. This made quite an impression on me and I think I may have just today heard them in a way that was much closer to their potential. I didn't even have the sub hooked up...so these were carrying the load all by themselves.

The Onkyo has plenty of current to drive them, but I may have been a little bit too light on the gas to this point. I really can't wait to see the results with a top quality amp, and I'm even more excited to hear the CG24s this coming Friday.  I think I'm starting to understand what all the fuss is about 

[satfrat]

Hi AJ, glad to hear you'll be auditioning the 24's along side the 4's. That fuller sound that you're hearing with the 2's as you step up the power, I think you'll be getting that with the 24's right from the get-go and it'll only get better as you punch them up. What really got me from the start was the price point,, only $75 difference for a whole lot more speaker (88db vs 90db & 100Hz vs 85Hz). And then there's the eventual matchup with the center down the road.

I know how much you love the flick experience AJ (as do I), so go spoil yur silly self with the CG24 and for gawd's sake use the Butler with them! 

Cheers,
Robin

[ajzepp]

Hi AJ, glad to hear you'll be auditioning the 24's along side the 4's. That fuller sound that you're hearing with the 2's as you step up the power, I think you'll be getting that with the 24's right from the get-go and it'll only get better as you punch them up. What really got me from the start was the price point,, only $75 difference for a whole lot more speaker (88db vs 90db & 100Hz vs 85Hz). And then there's the eventual matchup with the center down the road.

I know how much you love the flick experience AJ (as do I), so go spoil yur silly self with the CG24 and for gawd's sake use the Butler with them! 

Cheers,
Robin

lol...right on, my friend. Honestly, I thought a lot about what you said about the 24s, so when I spoke with Howard of RSL today I had your words in the back of my brain as he suggested I try the 24s. And heck yes, the Butler will certainly be involved from this point forward....I know you're one of the AC'ers who understands first hand just how amazing the Butler amps are, so this will be very interesting. Hearing more today about the background of the CG4s and 24s from Howard, I think I made a mistake in the way I viewed these. I purchased them expecting a budget speaker that would be acceptable for my HT needs, and if the music performance was there, as well, then that would be icing on the cake. But I think what we actually may have here is NOT a budget speaker at all, but a speaker of very good quality where Howard and his team were able to find a way to get into the hands of the consumer at a budget-like price. That's the main reason I figured it would be fine to just throw a 50 watt Onkyo receiver at them. But after tonight, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these little CG4s will respond big time to the Butler and scale up quite a bit. I could be completely wrong about that, but the speakers I heard tonight were NOT the speakers I heard the other day. Break-in aside, I think maybe I did them an injustice by failing to give them an amp that is more worthy of their performance level. This will be an interesting week!

I really appreciate you mentioning what you did about just going with the 24s...over the years I've put a lot of stock into your opinion, and I have a feeling you were spot-on in suggesting I go right for the big boys. 

[JLM]

I'm not a MTM either.  Yes efficiency typically goes up (most designs limited more by mid/woofer than tweeter), but there's that lobbing thing:  move away from the plane that exist at equal distance from the mid/woofers and you find severe cancellation and phasing issues; and at a given distance you'll find the same.  With a MTM center channel that limits you for best performance to a given distance (based on how far apart the mid/woofers are) along the exact center line of the speaker.  (Another reason for the popularity of MTM is that vertically arranged, they limit floor/ceiling interaction to better comply with THX standards.)

The constant directivity gurus agree (Geddee, Toole, even our Duke from Audiokinesis).

The solution is a three way center channel with a single midrange driver (bass signals are so large that they behave as waves vs. rays and so aren't affected).

[ajzepp]

I'm not a MTM either.  Yes efficiency typically goes up (most designs limited more by mid/woofer than tweeter), but there's that lobbing thing:  move away from the plane that exist at equal distance from the mid/woofers and you find severe cancellation and phasing issues; and at a given distance you'll find the same.  With a MTM center channel that limits you for best performance to a given distance (based on how far apart the mid/woofers are) along the exact center line of the speaker.  (Another reason for the popularity of MTM is that vertically arranged, they limit floor/ceiling interaction to better comply with THX standards.)

The constant directivity gurus agree (Geddee, Toole, even our Duke from Audiokinesis).

The solution is a three way center channel with a single midrange driver (bass signals are so large that they behave as waves vs. rays and so aren't affected).

Interesting, thanks. To date, the only time I really liked an MTM design was the old Paradigm Monitor 5 (v.2) I had over ten years ago. Whatever they did with that speaker, it just worked. The imaging on those things was hauntingly good.

With regard to center speaker use, do you think in a situation where two CG4s (small 2-way stand mount speaker) are used as mains, that a 3rd one in the middle for the center would be better than the MTM?  I'll be able to audition this stuff anyway, but the more feedback the better!

And is there some magical threshold that speakers have with regard to their amp requirements where they all of a sudden just 'switch on'? It's really odd how much better they sounded once I gave them more juice. I know speakers tend to sound better as you turn up the volume anyway, but this really was almost like a switch coming on. I've never experienced that before...

[JLM]

Some do recommend exactly matching the front three speakers.

I'm a big believer in having enough juice to provide a "commanding grip" (by the balls) on the speaker.  Micro/macro dynamics improve, bass is fuller/tighter, resolution is enhanced.

[srb]

I've used MTMs across the front and was never aware of phase or lobing problems compared to my TM or TMW speakers.  If the speaker is properly designed and if the driver spacing can be made close enough via truncated tweeter or woofer frames, it doesn't seem to present a big problem.
 
The 4 ohm CG24s will allow your non-transformer coupled amp to produce ~ 50% to ~ 100% more power, depending on the amplifier.  Often distortion rises with lower impedances, but it is also often such a minute change that I've not noticed that either.
 
With movies, the rear surrounds don't have as much output as the fronts, and even with 5-channel music I personally don't want equal intensity from the rears.
 
With that being said, I would go with CG24s across the front and CG4s in the rear.  If you sit somewhat close to the rear surrounds, all the more reason to go for the reduced or "normal" midrange presence of the smaller CG4 as well as the less obtrusive size.
 
Steve
 
 

[ajzepp]

Thanks, Steve...great info, as always!

I'm really hoping I have the same experience with the CG24s that I have with the Monitor 5s back in the day.

A buddy of mine (mostly a headphone guy) suggested that some receivers don't have a linear gain on their volume controls...do you guys think this might be the case with the Onkyo, which would account for why the CG4s seemed to "switch on" once I turned it up a bit?

[ajzepp]

Some do recommend exactly matching the front three speakers.

I'm a big believer in having enough juice to provide a "commanding grip" (by the balls) on the speaker.  Micro/macro dynamics improve, bass is fuller/tighter, resolution is enhanced.

My Butler is pretty good at grabbing some balls...cant' wait to feed him some CG4s!

[srb]

A buddy of mine (mostly a headphone guy) suggested that some receivers don't have a linear gain on their volume controls...do you guys think this might be the case with the Onkyo, which would account for why the CG4s seemed to "switch on" once I turned it up a bit?

Could have something to do with it.  I subscribe to mechanical speaker driver break-in as well, but how much depends on the drivers.  If they have very stiff spiders and/or surrounds (and the material type is subject to some softening), that might also account for a more abrupt change from very low levels "getting over the hump".
 
I suppose that after a reasonable amount of mechanical break-in, you will be able to accept or reject that possibility.
 
Steve

[ajzepp]

Could have something to do with it.  I subscribe to mechanical speaker driver break-in as well, but how much depends on the drivers.  If they have very stiff spiders and/or surrounds (and the material type is subject to some softening), that might also account for a more abrupt change from very low levels "getting over the hump".
 
I suppose that after a reasonable amount of mechanical break-in, you will be able to accept or reject that possibility.
 
Steve

That's almost exactly what Howard of RSL said to me on the phone re: spiders/drivers....I know that I noticed break-in with my Maggies, but that's obviously a different type of speaker.  Thus far, the results indicate that these speakers are sounding significantly better on day 5 than they did on day 1...so whatever is goign on, it's a good thing!